At the same time, Republicans are embracing him, including Dick Cheney.

Although some Democrats are upset with Mr. Lieberman, Republicans are embracing him, with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singling him out, and his support for the war, for praise in speeches this week.

I am a conservative that has always said that going to Iraq was a big stupid mistake. I said it before and I say it now. The evidence never justified us going in when our forces could have been better used elsewhere.
That having been said I wish someone on the Left would address the power vacuum Iraq would suffer if we withdrew immediately. Is that what you really want?

It's Vietnam all over again. Why wait til 58,000 of our troops are dead? For what? You think it will be any better then? Hell no...out NOW.
As for Leiberman, many people, myself included, rue the day in 1988 when they voted for him against Lowell Weicker. I hope Mr. Weicker gives the people a chance to rectify that mistake next time. Lieberman has always put his allegiance to Israel ahead of the United States. He is a Zionist Neocon pariah (not to cast any aspersions).

That having been said I wish someone on the Left would address the power vacuum Iraq would suffer if we withdrew immediately.

There would be a civil war. A civil war between the Shia and the Sunni. Fought with U.S. and Russian arms, both of recent and non-recent origin. The Shia make up around 80% of the population and are right wing fundmentalists that, if given the choice, would popularly elect an Iran-friendly repressive and highly nationalistic Theocracy into power. But it is the Sunni minority that has ruled Iraq for generations. Most recently, the Baathists, who came to and remained in power during the 1980s thanks to the American Right Wing. If it weren't for the U.S. and Sadaam Hussein, Iran and Iraq would have been allies by 1990. Since that would annoy Unocal and the House of Saud, the Iraqi people had to have their will repressed (fundamentalist and repressive as it may be) and Arabs had to die en masse.
So unless U.S. forces stay there forever, I suspect a civil war is unavoidable. Unless the U.S. installs yet another corrupt despotic regime friendly to the U.S. -- armed to the teeth and bolstered by U.S. presence to repress the will of the Iraqi majority. I wonder how long the next one will last and if my grandchildren will be sent to overthrow the next failed American War Corporatist Middle East experiment.
Which is precisely why the U.S. should leave. Iraq ruled by a despotic right wing fundamentalist regime by their own volition (as seen in Chile and Argentina) is less despicable than a despotic right wing Corporatist regime placed in power by a country that talks about freedom in one breath and then works to oppress people for profit with the next.
Neocon Social Darwinists are not bound by such logic. Too bad they're all to chickenspit to admit it. And isn't fundamentalist extremism a wonderful thing...Christian or Moslem.
/Sarcasm Off

Lieberman is being used by the GOP to give the appearance of "bipartisan" support when, among Democrats, only Lieberman is marching in line behind Bush. They are hoping to create the impression that there is no difference between Dems and Repubs on Iraq, and if there is no difference than there is no reason to throw the GOP bums out who got us into this mess. They keep attempting to disprove Lincoln's observation that you can't fool all the people all of the time. Looks like they found at least one fool.

demohypocrates:
I am a conservative that has always said that going to Iraq was a big stupid mistake.
Fine, but that was mainly a left position. Remember? Your 'winger colleagues screamed about how we (along with pretty much the rest of the planet) "objectively supported" terrorism, Saddam, AlQaeda, etc., we were cowards, we were fools, we'd forgotten 9/11 (in New York. Right.), we hated America and any other hysterical insult they could pull out of their collective asses.
But guess what? The Left WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING.
That having been said I wish someone on the Left would address the power vacuum Iraq would suffer if we withdrew immediately. Is that what you really want?
We already told y'all what to do about Iraq: Don't.
We told you so. We told you so. We told you so. We told you so. We told you so, you stupid bastards.
So explain to me again why the Left is expected to be on the defensive about this?
No, wait--don't bother, I already know.
Conservatives aren't asking the Left "So what's your idea, smart guy?" solely to be offensive. They're also doing it because self-described conservatives have no ideas. All they have is myriad permutations of how much they hate the Left and anything associated with the Left. Which isn't any help in this case.
So what they're really asking "Oh please Left. Bail us out! We've utterly screwed ourselves!! Please PLEEASE come up with something--you have all the smart people! We chased out all our smart people and there's no one here but ideologues and our own butt-kissers. Left, please save us!"
Except, of course, they left out all the "please" and they can't think of a way to phrase it to prevent anyone besides the GOP leadership from getting any of the credit.
You want to fill the power vacuum? How about an actual democracy instead of the puppet government the GOP is trying to set up?

As Fred Kaplan at Slate notes (citing MIT's Barry Posen) so long as everyone thinks our troops will stick around: "the Iraqi army will never grow up, the Kurds will continue to flirt with secession, the Sunnis will blame their diminished power on our occupation (not on their minority status), and the majority Shiites will rule without seeing a need to make compromises."

Molly
You correctly stated the democratic position. I wish the world could be ruled by hindsight but it isn't. Real leaders must make decisions on what is going on now, not what we already know happened.
Secondly your post makes no sense. You say the right is asking for the left to bail them out. The right would be doing fine if it weren't for the constant negativism, harping and second guessing coming from the left. Let alone accusing the president of lying, being dishonest etc...
The left is incapable of fighting this war and their only solution is retreat. I agree if this war WAS unwinable we should leave but that fact isn't known and declaring defeat now only shows that you don't want to win. As long as that is the position of the dems & left they will lose on the Iraq issue and they will look really stupid a year from now when Iraq is improving.
Then I'll say...I told you so!

The power vaccuum that would be created would be one that actual IRAQIS could fill without their American masters deciding the outcomes. The lack of faith in the Iraqi people on the part of the right is staggering. Why don't we just say what we mean: "You're not capable of taking control of your own future, and we have to control it for you."

Slado,
Your definition of "win" in the case of Iraq seems far to influenced by a football game. It would seem as clear as anything that your and my definitions of win don't mean a damn thing. And since a huge majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out and soon, their definition of win would appear closer to Molly's than yours.
Do you think it just a coincidence that since American public opinion has turned against the war, and specifically since John Murtha made his heartfelt statement, that Iraqis have made OFFICIAL calls for us start getting out. They are reading the tea leaves of American public opinion and would seem finally able to speak the truth without fear of pissing of their occupiers.
As for Lieberman, he's as crooked a senator as they're is. And as dishonest. One of those democrats who make me cringe and wonder why their a dem at all.

Its difficult to decide whether this war can be won only because the goals and thus the criteria for winning have never been clear stated. We've had WMD, promoting democracy, making life for Iraqis better etc.
If the goal is to win militarily then the war is not winnable, at least as presently constituted. If the goal is to bring democracy then the war is unwinnable because none of the 3 ethich groups want democracy at this time.
If the goal is to set up an Iranian backed theocracy, a Kurdish semi-independent state, a radicalization of the Sunnis towards the Muslim Brotherhood, establish a terrorist training ground, allow a civil war , destabilize the entire region, then you've got a winner.
Other than worn out slogans, fear mongering and hate mongering, staples of the right, there is never a well thought out argument for how we can win only that we can't lose and anyone who doesn't recognize this is stupid, a traitor etc.

John Horse,
Great quote from SLATE and right on the mark. We seem to have forgotten that this nation survived a quarter century of dictatorship. We only seem like the new dictator with slightly different clothes.
Also, it's interesting and disturbing that the right starts this insane war and now says we can't exit because violence would ensue. As if OUR violence is somehow good and beneficial.

My definition of winning is a stable government in Iraq that is freindly to the US and more like a democracy then any country in the history of the region. Will it be perfect. NO. But I don't expect perfection, unlike the critics of the war who are there every step of the way to criticise.
Here are your leaders...Kerry can't make up his mind. Pelosi...retreat..Murtha talks about "re-deploying" to another Middle Eastern country. Which one? Dean called for retreat and the same "re-deployment" then took it back. ETc... Etc...
Until anti-war folks give an option other then retreat I can't take them seriously and neither will 66% of the country. Sure most people dissaprove of Bush's handling of the war etc... but what they don't want is to turn it over to the democrats because they have zero credibility...other then Liberman...on this issue.
I would think after 3years of saying we've lost you guys would give up by now after declaring defeat before we got to Baghdad, before the 2004 election and before the December elections in Iraq but I'll give you and A for effort. Your negativity and pessimism know no bounds and you are determined despite what happens on the ground to see us lose.
Things happen fast and in two months we might be talking about how well the elections went, how the new security forces are improving etc.. etc... Or the whole thing could as big a mess as the media likes to portray it. For you guys to draw a line in the sand now and declare defeat only shows...once again...that you don't support the effort and thank god your party doesn't run the country.
(open in 12 months) I told you so!

Your negativity and pessimism know no bounds and you are determined despite what happens on the ground to see us lose.

It depends on what the definition of winning is. My definition of winning is not your definition of winning.
Your definition of winning:

My definition of winning is a stable government in Iraq that is freindly to the US and more like a democracy then any country in the history of the region. Will it be perfect. NO.

My definition of winning:
Not forcing a government on the Iraqi people that they do not want. Not using a puppet regime to suck Iraq's natural resources and dollars back to America. Not use the Iraqi people as fodder, a buffer, or an excuse to overthrow Iran/Syria. That's my definition of success, it isn't yours because you erroneously attribute American values to a completely different culture. They want an Islamic theocracy, not Democracy. They want their own businesses, their own leaders, their own natural resources. They don't want to earn 1/6 of what American workers earn working for American Corporations in Iraq.
Bush's definition of success:
A puppet regime. Despotic or not. Anything that allows wanton U.S. troop movements on what is supposed to be foreign sovereign soil. Anything that allows U.S. corporations to dominate whatever market opportunities exist in Iraq.
And there we are...
Retreat is a dishonest and inappropriate description. We would be retreating from Iraq in the same sense as if Rome had voluntarily decided to "retreat" from Gaul or Britannia at the height of the Roman empire.

Just more slogans and empty nonspecific rhetoric from Slado. No explanation as to how the civil war will be avoided, how the influence of Iran will be minimized, how the increased influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sunni regions is going to be offset.
Slado's solution is just the same old tired Imperialitic answer, with no details of how you are going to get there without causing the entire region to explode.
Why do we have to answer anything. You are the idiots that gor us into this stinking mess. My first piece of advice would be to stop digging. But thats not whats going to happen.
My guess as to what will happen is that American forces will continue to cede areas to the Sunnis, then allow the Shia militias such as the Badr Corps to do what they want, and turn the US airforce loose and start to flatten Sunni areas. Then the US will pray it can somehow thwart the religous Shias from gaining control. They are trying to buy sometime and hope a favorable solution falls out of the sky.

The only definition of winning that matters is Dick Cheney's, i.e., his boys are getting a major infusion of treasury money. Leiberman is on board because a weakened Iraq benefits Israel. But only if we attack Iran next.